Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Hatred of Christians Leaves LA Times Nowhere to Turn in ’08

Hatred of Christians Leaves LA Times Nowhere to Turn in ’08

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

After a recent Los Angeles Times editorial used the platform of the evolutionists versus creationists debate to leap into an excoriating criticism of three Republican candidates who professed faith in Christianity, the top three Democrat candidates on June 4 stood in the public limelight and offered their testimonies to YAHWEH — The Almighty who the LA Times' editors apparently believe is merely a figment of the imagination of more than a billion people around the world. 

Presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton testified during a forum on June 4 — hosted by Sojourners/Call to Renewal — it was her faith in God (YAHWEH) that got her through her marital troubles. Prayers sustained her, she recalled. John Edwards admitted he was a sinner and sinned daily — and prayers also sustained him through his son's death in 1996 and his wife's battle with cancer. Still, despite his "deep and abiding love for Lord, Jesus Christ," Edwards believes the United States ought not be considered a Christian nation.

Barack Obama preferred to view the issues pertaining to war in terms of just and unjust rather than a perspective of good versus evil, which he believes would otherwise lend itself to a less critical view of the actions of our own nation.

But with all three of the Democrats candidates having an abiding belief and faith in an invisible God, and all three of the top Republican candidates joining them in that belief, it appears that the LA Times — which had its say about such silly notions of electing leaders who profess profound preference for policies rooted in revelations from the bible — is devoid of a single legitimate religion-free candidate to endorse.

Surely, the position of the LA Times editorial board — as expressed less than two weeks ago regarding three candidates who are professing Christians — also applies equally to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, each of whom declared their faith in Jesus of Nazareth to the nation today. The Times' editors criticized only the Republican candidates as unfit for leadership of this nation by stating, "Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together."

With all of the presidential candidates declaring a love for Jesus Christ and dependency upon faith in God and daily prayers for strength and guidance, in whom will the LA Times editors place their trust? Surely the coined phrase placed upon the nation's currency is meaningless to such evolved intellects in Los Angeles. So how then can any editor at the LA Times worth his paycheck find solace in an endorsement of any candidate that bends his knee to an invisible God?

And let's not pretend that any of these candidates subscribe to both the notion of creation as well as the science of evolution. The two are not compatible. One will be accepted whole and the other challenged in whole or part, but Christianity — and the words and deeds of Jesus Himself — contains far too many contradictions to the theory of evolution for any Christian to walk that line for too long without falling onto one side or the other. 

It is indeed a conundrum for the LA Times editors. After all, the notion that one could potentially believe in God and have faith in Jesus yet also embrace evolution science wholeheartedly is a fence that has never been walked successfully.

Consider the notion that Jesus claimed He was with God before the world began and that God granted Him dominion over all created things. The idea that everything was "created" sort of puts a crimp in the scientific theory of evolution, which begins with an obscure origin that some believe was a bang billions of years ago. But that's just the beginning of the obstacles between evolution faith and Christian faith. Jesus claimed that mankind is doomed to a sentence of death of both body and soul for disobeying God, yet through His sacrifice of innocent sinless blood on behalf of our sins, we have an opportunity to be saved from the wrath of God … if we accept Him as Savior and Lord of our lives. That surely sounds like a load of nonsense to an evolutionist, who is willing to wager his life (and soul) that Christians are a bit wacky with the whole lake of fire stuff.

Then there is the notion of evil, as personified by Satan, the devil, demons and those who oppose God. Where does all of that fit into evolution? And did angels ever roam the earth and have their way with daughters of men? Did Jesus raise the dead, walk on water and instantly heal leprosy and other diseases? How are such things possible, if evolutionists are right and man evolved over millions of years, adjusting according to survival of the fittest?

And what about Moses? Are the Jews also unfit for leadership in America because they fervently believe that Moses had a personal audience with God and acted as His go-between with Pharoah? How does the evolutionist explain the parting of the Red Sea or even the Great Flood in Noahs' day? Did the prophet Jonah really spend three days and nights in the belly of a great fish?

Evolution seeks to explain how things came into being but falls woefully short, while tossing sharp criticism at those who place their faith in biblical revelations. It seeks to set itself apart due to particular processes through which it divines information, rather than mere faith in ancient texts.

Unfortunately, evolutionists too often fail to examine their own beliefs with the same critical eye cast upon Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. While they look down their noses upon the faithful, they forget that they also have placed a lot of faith in processes that are fallible. The generation of evolutionists today do not believe the same things as the ones before it. And as science evolves, to discover what it thought it knew yesterday was wrong, a new generation will place its faith in a newly evolved process claiming it is the best that can be done. Such reason is understandable, but the limits of man's knowledge does not create fact or truth. It merely creates "belief." Thus, the LA Times editors are as trusting in the texts of evolution science books as Christians are in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

The difference is that Christians need not change their perspectives and beliefs with the shifting sands of time or the gale force winds that blow away old science textbooks with every passing generation. It would be intellectually honest for evolutionists to admit that they, too, have faith in things unseen and theories unproven. 

The religious willingly admit that underneath all the reasoning and rationale that underscores our thinking, there is a foundation of faith that is the core of our being and the center of our lives. It guides us, nurtures us and fuels us. It answers questions of life, love, relationships, good and evil that cannot otherwise be rationally explained by any field of science. Our faith in God provides us a guidepost that leads us through life, teaching us to do good, treating others as we would have them treat us, forgiving transgressions easily, and thinking of others above ourselves.

Science would do well to learn from Jesus rather than crucify His followers. After all, if Jesus is truly King of Kings and Lord of Lords — and really did conquer death and plans to return in glory — those who proclaim that anyone who believes in such silliness isn't fit to lead a democratic society of diverse peoples may someday wish they were part of a society of believers who worship a Monarch.

Evolution science cannot respond adequately to all of the claims made by Jesus, nor explain the numerous acts by God chronicled in the bible. After all, evolution would deny that donkeys can talk, the wind and sea respond to the commands of one man, and that both angels and demons exist and interact among men. Thus, if the theory of evolution is taught as an accepted fact, then Christianity, Judaism and other world religions must be denied as true.

At the end of the day, evolution theory and Christianity are not completely compatible. That is not to say that parts of each cannot be accepted across the lines of belief, but neither side can accept the other in totality. And in a nation comprised of a majority Christian population, the leaders of our nation who desire the votes of faithful Christians will either pretend to be such themselves or they actually are. In either case, they will likely attract the ire of the editors at the LA Times

Of course, if the LA Times' criticism of Christian creationists is correct, and Jesus Christ is wrong, Judgment Day is nothing to fear and the biggest problem they will have is deciding which wacky Christian to support for president in '08.      

Powered by

About Mike Green

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I guess that part of the delusion you share with the 6 candidates who have so far declared their allegiance to fairydust and moonbeams, is that you’re incapable of counting. These 3 republicans and 3 democrats are less than half of the field in this election so far. There are nice, rational candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson to vote for.

    And BTW, I don’t remember any of the candidates shouting out ‘YAHWEH’ like some sort of god-drunk freak.

    Dave

  • wdufkin

    Bravo

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Mike is a would-be prosecutor who has neither facts, evidence, credible witnesses nor law on his side, so he pounds the table a lot.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    It’s obvious that you put Creationists under the whole Christian umbrella. A slam against Creationism is a slam against Christianity to you, but not to others.

    For example, the three Democratic candidates might profess a belief in God, but none have supported Creationism.

    And also, dismissing Creationism isn’t classified as hatred except in the mind of the paranoid.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Example.

    From Barack Obama:

    “It’s not ‘faith’ if you are absolutely certain,” Obama said, noting that he didn’t believe his lack of “faith” would hurt him a national election. “Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.”

    Yet you paint a dismissal of Creationism as a slam against him. I can find nothing on Edwards or Hillary about Creationism.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Just as “Intelligent Design” is thinly-veiled Christian-fundamentalist creationism, so to is this article a sermon, masquerading as political commentary.

    Evidently Jesus has revealed to his followers that he desires or needs elective office, now that the divine right of kings didn’t work out.

  • zingzing

    this article is just so over the top and ridiculous. as you yourself point out, everybody knows that a bunch of those republicans you so desperately love for one issue or another are just taking christians for a ride. they don’t give a fuck about religion. all they want is their four-eight years of earthly power.

  • zingzing

    whoop-when you’re not busy making a fool out of yourself, you’re busy picking out who is going to make a fool out of you next.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Good point, Steve. While only three of the Republicans raised their hand to admit to rejecting evolution, I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn’t raise his hand is still extremely – even frighteningly – religious.

    Dave

  • Lisa R

    Stop trying to pull us Jews into your arguements. The Christian concept of creation, god, etc is not the same as the Jewish concepts. We Jews do not believe in the existance of hell, the devil, the Christian concept of sin, etc.

    Furthermore, there is no conflict between the story of creation as described in the Tanach (Jewish Bible) and the theory of evolution. One of the greatest Jewish sages once said: Those who cannot reconcile science and religion do not understand one or the both.

  • duane

    I would have to agree with zingzing (#7). All this religious talk from politicos is just condescension and pandering.

    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. — Aristotle

    Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. –Napoleon Bonaparte

    Mike, you try to make the same points here as in your previous article about the LA Times. You ignored most of the comments made on that thread, ditched it, and rewrote more or less the same stuff here (“things unseen”, “shifting sands,” etc.).

    Also, in the way of a general critique, you touch upon too many topics, leaving a rather incoherent piece. It starts off fine, with a discussion of presidential hopefuls and their positions vis-a-vis religion. Then you bring it home with your criticism of the LA Times and their statements concerning the same issue.

    But then the article devolves to the evolution vs. creationism “debate,” then the Big Bang, Satan, Moses, disparaging remarks about evolutionists, the limit’s of Man’s knowledge, and so forth.

    It appears as though the bit about the LA Times is just a red herring, a jumping off point for you to demean science, scientists, and those who look to modern science for answers to scientific questions.

    A suggestion: write a few distinct articles in which your points are laid out for the reader, provide some backup information or supporting argument for each point that you’re trying to make. Your last two articles are so full of arguable statements that it’s almost impossible for the commenters to have a decent discussion, because you’re all over the map. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you write not just to pound the pulpit but to engender some meaningful, focused debate.

    Without this focus, your central thesis (which is what?) gets lost in the tangents.

  • MBD

    Nallecon says…

    “I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn’t raise his hand is still extremely – even frighteningly – religious.”

    Frighteningly?

    Do you see boogey men everywhere? Do you wear magic glasses that helps you see them?

    What has Ron Paul ever said or done to justify your statement?

    Are you just throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick?

  • MCH

    “There are nice, rational candidates like Rudy Giuliani…to vote for.”
    – Vox Nalle

    Since when are serial adulterers “nice and rational”…?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Ah yes, Rudy ‘Rational’ Giuliani, who against all advice insisted on siting the NYC emergency control center in the largest, most conspicuous, most bombable building in the whole city.

    About as rational as stripping naked, smothering yourself in honey, lying down on top of an ant’s nest and expecting a good night’s sleep.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Since the book you link to, Mike, is your own and has nothing to do with the article at hand, I would think that a critical comment on it is appropriate. What one puts on Blogcritics should be available to scrutiny, especially one that is nothing more than a gratituous plug.

    EHarmony claims it can match people perfectly based on Christian ideals, much like the claim of your book.

    Unfortnately, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.

    I know a well-meaning intent is there, Mike, and I give you credit for that, but it’s made me wonder….is it possible for a Creationist to fall in love with and live with, an Evolutionist and vice versa?

    Or, in a world where disagreement is viewed as hatred, is a higher divorce rate inevitable?

  • sr

    Just what we need. Another blog on creation and evolution. Im sure the comments will add to our fun on Blogcritics.

  • MBD

    Just what we need. Another comment on comments that adds nothing to the other comments.. Im sure your comment will add to our fun on Blogcritics.

  • Dr Dreadful

    MBD, your last comment moves me to comment that commenting about comments on comments that add nothing to other comments isn’t worth commenting about. Care to comment?

  • sr

    I new this would be fun especially from my favorite funney men, Laurel and Hardy.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Here’s another fine thread you’ve gotten us into.

  • zingzing

    “Unfortnately, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.”

    you know why? because they meet, deny themselves sex, marry, have sex… then realize they’re no good together.

    heh. bite my head off if you think it ain’t true.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Could be, zingzing. I tend to think it comes from their rigid perceptions of marital roles. They believe in the 1950’s model of Father Knows Best where the man rules the castle, and the woman is submissive and stays home. Society turned from this as a rigid example and uses it as a flexible guide in order to accomodate diverse relationships. Not so the ultra-conservative. They cannot bend their roles, and like the tree that cannot bend, in a big gale, it breaks in half.

    Growing up in the Bible Belt, that has been what I have seen time and time again. Your mileage may vary.

  • MCH

    “I new this would be fun especially from my favorite funney men, Laurel and Hardy.”
    – sr

    Hey Clavos, look, he spells funny with an “e,”…quick, time to snipe in…

  • MBD

    funney IS funny.

  • MBD

    Did I preempt Clavos?

    Sorry.

  • Zedd

    Mike,

    Is this some sort of joke? Are you trying to be funny or make fun of Christians?

    This is the most unreasoned article that I have ever read on the Internet. Please stop writing.

    As a Christian, I am offended by your spoof.

  • sr

    Doc#20. I love it. So I misspelled Funny (E)MDB. So sue me. Did you find out with spell check? Like I give a shit. FUNNEY THAT YOU MENTIONED IT. NOW THATS REALLLLLLY FUNNNNNNNNNNY.

  • Zedd

    Clav

    Did sr mean to say KNEW instead of NEW? Ohhhhhhh where are you when we need you?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, Paul’s religious beliefs are a matter of public record. He’s written enough about them. It’s not my fault if you’re abyssmally ignorant.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Doc sez:

    “MBD, your last comment moves me to comment that commenting about comments on comments that add nothing to other comments isn’t worth commenting about. Care to comment?”

    Sublime, Doc. Simply sublime. Props.

  • Titus

    I was a Ron Paul supporter for months before his popularity kicked in. Then I read an article critical of church/state separation. Thats enough for me to change my vote, though I agree with him more than any other candidate.

    If I were an employer hiring scientists, or geologists, I would discriminate against christains because they likely not be reliable.

  • sr

    Zedd. I knew that you knew it. So what’s new Zedd. I dont use spell check. My emence intelligence with half my brain tied behind my back finds no use for it.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I’ve supported Ron Paul for 20 years. I’ve even donated to his congressional campaigns. But I can’t support him for president. I hope his campaign goes great, and that it results in a beautiful opportunity for him to speak at the convention and perhaps get chosen as VP so he can keep on spreading his good ideas.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Well said by a true neocon.

  • sr

    I only have one arm, one eye, one ball and half a brain. Im 86 and run each day. I climb trees and see the stars. Sex is great and with my half brain I still fish and feed you all this bullshit.

  • MBD

    Nallecon says…

    “Paul’s religious beliefs are a matter of public record. He’s written enough about them. It’s not my fault if you’re abyssmally (sic) ignorant.”

    Stop blowing your abysmal smoke.

    It’s obvious nallecon can’t back up his generalizations.

    Taking something based on what Nallecon says is like bailing out of a plane relying on a parachute made up someone who had no qualifications to do it.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Articles like the one way up above here make me want to puke.

    First, there is no one on the planet who could get themselves elected to dog catcher in this country if they even intimated they weren’t true believers. I am not suggesting that any of the declared presidential candidates are lying in their professions of faith. But as noted in other comments above, there is belief, and then there is belief. Radical fundamentalists who support creative design, and/or who are pushing for a theocratic state are a different breed of christian than, say your average methodist.

    CDers who maintain that the world is only around 6000 years old and that all animals were vegetarians until Eve – that bitch!! – tempted Adam – poor guileless Adam – into taking a bite of the forbidden fruit, shortly after their eviction from the Garden by god who was, I have been told, wearing a deputy sheriff’s outfit and sporting a beer gut just for effect, many animals suddenly developed a preference for meat (No more soy burgers for me, thanks.)

    Creationists believe that man co-existed with dinosaurs, that Noah had dinosaurs on his apparently monumental ark (Noah drove em nuts at the Home Depot lumber department.) The creationist museums claim that those dinosaurs were veggiesaurs, even T-Rex and the raptors.

    But wait! I’m confused about the time line here. How long was it between the ousting of A&E from Eden Acres, and the flood? Did it take a while before all the carnivores discovered that they were, uh, carnivores?

    Creationists would all be utterly laughable if it weren’t for their insidious brainwashing of children who will grow up believing this crap. And it is ludicrous crap! It is tantamount to child abuse. The children of radical fundamentalists will reach their majority effectively brain dead with no will to voice doubts, or to question anything. Doubts and questions are not allowed.

    If possible, dominionists are even worse. For all their talk about the afterlife, they have an insatiable desire for power in earthly affairs. It is not about saving souls. It is about power. It is fascism in its purest form. Their vision of Jesus is not of a kindly, unassuming, slightly effeminate fellow in long flowing robes. It is rather an image of an “Abs of Steel,” kick-ass, bad-ass wearing ammo belts across his chest, with a blazing machine gun in each hand, a mad glint in his eyes and an insidious smile upon his face. If the dominionists succeed just remember Samuel L. Jackson’s line in Jurassic Park: “Hold onto your butts!” because you’re likely to lose them.

    Baritone

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, why are you the only person on BC who needs to be held by the hand and led to publicly available documents which anyone with access to google can find on their own?

    I refer you first to this article by Ron Paul in which he perpetuates a variety of christofascists historical revisionist lies.

    I also refer you to another article from a Paul supporter who points out that Paul does have an established history of racist and theocratic statements.

    Paul’s got a lot going for him, but he does have a dark underbelly.

    Now explain to me why you’re incapable of looking any of this up on your own?

    Dave

  • MBD

    Nallecon first said…

    “I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn’t raise his hand is still extremely – even frighteningly – religious.”

    All this proves is that you frighten yourself.

    Your referenced articles are a combination of his defense of what the Constitution says and a lot of innuendo and smears.

    But that is what you live on.

  • Zedd

    sr

    I really don’t care about mistakes on blogs. I make a zillion of them. I am the queen of mistakes. There is one or five on every post I make.

    I was actually giving Clav a jab. He is always quick to correct mistakes.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, you are remarkably impervious to reality. Believe whatever silly fantasies you want, you will anyway.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Nallecon said earlier…

    “I’ve supported Ron Paul for 20 years. I’ve even donated to his congressional campaigns…”

    Now, those who support Ron Paul believe “in silly fantasies.”

    It’s interesting how the neocon chameleon changes his position.

    But that is what chameleons do.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    To be fair, I’ve supported Democrats my whole life, and frankly, I’m done with them now. Someone who believes at 40 or 50, what they believed at 20, hasn’t grown any in life.

  • MBD

    SteveS.. “I’ve supported Democrats my whole life, and frankly, I’m done with them now.”

    Nallecon… “I’ve supported Ron Paul for 20 years… But I can’t support him for president.”

    SteveS…do you support Democrats except those who run for president?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    You don’t make sense MBD and resort to attacks against me again. I don’t even know who you are or what your beef is. My point is that people can change their mind.

    No, I no longer support any Democrats since Pelosi and Reid decided to bend over and get fucked by Bush AFTER they were given control by voters to do something about the war.

    :See another liberal here, Keith Olbermann, talk about how the Democrats have let us down.

    I’m done with the party. I’m frustrated to hear that their (Edwards/Hillary/Obama, et. al.) solution to healthcare is more red tape. I’m frustrated to hear that DADT wasn’t a mistake but is wrong. What does that mean? No, I’m done with those who won’t commit to a damn thing without running it by a focus group first, and I’ve been a lifelong Democrat up till this point.

    I’m going to check out the Green Party and the Libertarian party. Drastically different, I know, but the whole Republican and Democratic parties just need to be taken out with the trash. They suck.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Sorry, I must have been ranting in a vacuum.

  • MBD

    “You don’t make sense MBD and resort to attacks against me again”

    SteveS… Sorry you missed my point. It was not directed at you. I was pointing out the ludicrous claim made in the statement… “I’ve supported Ron Paul for 20 years… But I can’t support him for president.”

  • Dr Dreadful

    Dave’s statement is perfectly reasonable, MBD. He simply doesn’t feel that Paul is up to the job of President.

    It’s no more ludicrous than your supervisor saying to her boss that although you’re fantastic at the job you do, she doesn’t think you’d thrive in a management position.

    Character assessment, not inconsistency.

  • Dr Dreadful

    SteveS sez: You don’t make sense MBD and resort to attacks against me again.

    MBD makes a point of attacking everyone, Steve, regardless of their opinion. Just yesterday on another thread he was gratuitously laying into Ruvy over his memories from 25 years ago of an event that happened 15 years before that.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Thanks for trying to explain, Dr. D., but you’re probably wasting your time. MBD’s perspective is warped by his bizarre conviction that I’m a neocon, despite the fact that I’ve never endorsed their philosophy and have voted libertarian in every election in the 30 years I’ve been old enough to vote.

    What MBD seems to be unable to grasp is that you can support a candidate for one office, but not for another, or that you might think that a policians skills are better suited to one role than another. Or the idea that someone is not of ‘presidential calibre’ but still well worth voting for as a legislator.

    We need Ron Paul in the Congress to keep performing his role as its conscience. We need Ron Paul in the presidential primary campaign to keep bringing up the issues he promotes. We just don’t need him losing in the final election and we certainly don’t need him in the white house, hidebound by ideology and proving to be disastrous and doing damage to the libertarian movement within the GOP.

    Dave

  • daryl d

    Why do Christians always feel they are being “mistreated” when they are the ones who preach Hitler like tactics against anybody who is Middle Eastern, gay, or doesn’t believe with their extremely cult-like beliefs. Sorry, Christians, you have tried to run our lives and we are now fighting back.

  • MBD

    #49… “Just yesterday on another thread he was gratuitously laying into Ruvy over his memories from 25 years ago of an event that happened 15 years before that.”

    LOL!

    DD = Dumb Dreaming…

  • MBD

    Nallecon…

    “I’ve… voted libertarian in every election in the 30 years I’ve been old enough to vote.”

    That would mean nallecon voted for Ron Paul in the presidential election of 1988, when Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian.

    Or is nallecon just bullshitting again?

  • bliffle

    Christians have been spoiled rotten by the deference that the MSM has traditionally shown out of fear of retribution. But all that is changed in the modern internet age. The MSM will lose their business regardless of their pusillanimous attitude, so they may as well be frank.

    Hurts, doesn’t it? To be so casually abused by strangers. We irreligious folk have had to put up with far more egregious slights and insults for many many years. Get used to it -it isn’t going to get better.

    Now we just have to get these phony politicians to quit claiming “faith” positions that we know are crap. We ALL know they are crap, religious and irreligious alike. It’s just a pose to pay tribute to the sinister vindictive unprincipled religious lobby.

  • Dr Dreadful

    DD = Dumb Dreaming…

    OK, if we’re going to start with the personal insults (Mr Rose, please note this will be my one and only):

    MBD = Mauled By Dave

    …no, that doesn’t quite do it. Try:

    MBD = Messages Belong in a Dumpster

    I thank you. I will be available for autographs after the show.

  • MBD

    I prefer Mangled Bullshitting Dave

  • Dr Dreadful

    So you were mangled while attempting to bullshit Dave? I’m sorry to hear that. Never mind – I hear they have a very good healthcare system in Cuba you might want to try. It’s kept Castro alive for about 600 years so far so it must be some pretty hot shit.

  • MBD

    To DD a.k.a Dr Dyslexic

    Read it again…

    Mangled Bullshitting Dave

    Get it now?

  • zingzing

    jesus christ. macho butt digger and doll dicker need to stop being so childish.

    mmm.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Oh, come on, zing2, it’s good to throw poop once in a while. Anyway, as I said above, I’m done now. MBD is just going to have to play with himself.

  • MBD

    Yeah… let’s get back to Ron Paul and what he stands for…

    I should have disregarded doll dicker’s diatribes.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    That would mean nallecon voted for Ron Paul in the presidential election of 1988, when Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian.

    I didn’t just VOTE for him, I worked on his campaign and distributed literature and talked to voters on his behalf. I did this because at the time I had no realistic expectation that he’d get elected, so helping him get his message out was nothing but a positive. Plus he was running on a Libertarian platform which did not indulge his religious and nativist inclinations.

    Dave

  • MBD

    “he was running on a Libertarian platform which did not indulge his religious and nativist inclinations.”

    LOL!

    He’s running on “religious and nativist inclinations” now?

  • MCH

    “I didn’t just VOTE for him, I worked on his campaign and distributed literature and talked to voters on his behalf.”
    – Vox Nalle

    Oohhh, OK….no wonder he lost….

  • sr

    sr for president. My platform, high heels and liberals get to suck free dick and eat spring rolls viewing naked pitures of Rosie and the Hilldabeast. Sure couldn’t ask for anything more.

  • Dr Dreadful

    “sr for president”…

    Time for we on Blogcritics to start a write-in campaign.

  • sr

    Hey Doc old boy, get started with that write-in campaign. You will be my vice president and Paris Hilton will be our secretary of state. Will even have Rosie as secretary of fat people. Sounds like a plan to me.

    Sincerely,
    President sr

  • Dr Dreadful

    I don’t think you’d be happy with me as VP since you hate liberals.

    Doesn’t worry me though. I personally think all conservatives should go to the guillotine. Kindly step into this haycart and try to ignore the knitting peasant women. Courage, monsieur! It is a mercifully quick and painless death.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I’m fat and I don’t want Rosie to be my secretary.
    I’d rather have Catherine Zeta-Jones, thank you very much.

    Baritone

  • MCH

    “sr for president. My platform, high heels and liberals get to suck free dick and eat spring rolls viewing naked pitures of Rosie and the Hilldabeast. Sure couldn’t ask for anything more.”

    MCH for president. My platform, send all the chickenhawk conservatives to the front lines in Iraq.

  • sr

    It’s hard to dislike you funneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey guys. Or is that funnnnnnnnnnny. I dont care if your conservative or a fool liberal. You make me laugh and that’s always a good thing. Baritone how would you like fat Rosie tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. I will say no more. I care to be respectful of certain ladies on BC so I will shut my mouth. Maybe you should put that into practice you pigs.

  • MBD

    sr — You will have my vote if your platform is putting into practice neocons getting you to suck their dick free.

    Nallecon first.

    No liberals.

    Do that and you will have my vote.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    But, MBD. I’m a liberal, not a neocon. So how does that work again?

    Dave

  • Dr Dreadful

    Dave, identifying yourself as a liberal to MBD will only encourage him. It’s like throwing ham to a cat.

    Or are you just going to stand back and enjoy the fireworks?!

  • MBD

    Nallecon says, “I’ve supported Ron Paul for 20 years. I’ve even donated to his congressional campaigns.”

    Now he’s a liberal?

    He’s a chameleon.

    But sr has my vote even if his platform includes sucking the dicks of neocon chameleons like Nallecon.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    I thought the objective was to get the government out of the bedroom.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    MSNBC and Newsweek seem to have chosen the side of the LA Times.

    Much like bacteria EVOLVES resistance to antibiotics and mosquitoes EVOLVE resistance to pesticides, it now seems that there is PROOF that evolution takes genes which have an obsolete purpose and EVOLVES them into a new function, showing that ‘Irreducible Complexity’ is reducible afterall.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, except for his current opportunistic position on immigration, Ron Paul is a liberal too – suck it up.

    Dave

  • MBD

    “I’ve… voted libertarian in every election in the 30 years I’ve been old enough to vote.”

    “There are nice, rational candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson to vote for”

    “I’ve supported Ron Paul for 20 years. I’ve even donated to his congressional campaigns…”

    “I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn’t raise his hand is still extremely – even frighteningly – religious.”

    “Ron Paul is a liberal too…”

    Does nallecon take the blue pill, the red pill, or both?

    Tumbling down the rabbit hole?” Nallecon says, “You take the blue pill, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and see just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

  • MBD

    “As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there’s a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become victims of the darkness.”

    —Justice William O. Douglas

    And Ron Paul is the only canary in the mine.

  • Dr Dreadful

    MBD, the rabbit hole bullshit was (a) not on this thread and (b) not written by Nalle.

    I think you need to go and lie down.

  • MBD

    nallecon’s apologist is disturbed because he is dyslexic, dysfunctional and cannot discern what was described.

    Stop taking the blue and red pills.

  • sr

    Dear Blogcritics, Thank you for some of the best intertainment of my life. You do a great job. Some of the comments I read make me fall out of my office chair or the fruit tree laughing. Sure Im conservative however many of your liberal commenters have great whit and are very intelligent. So are my conservatives friends. Thank you for this forum. MBD abd Doc you funny guys. After my election you shall become the jesters of my court. It pays $200.000 per year. What a deal. Now back to the subject at hand. I think we were talking about Paris Hilton working for the LA Times.

  • Dr Dreadful

    sr: You’re welcome. I’ll be happy to accept your job offer. What’s the health coverage like?

    MBD: it appears that although you are good at alliteration (you probably learned how from Brodie), you are sadly unable to determine the location of the boundary between the inside of your head and the real world. The Dr’s prescription to you is to keep taking the pills. All of them.

  • MBD

    I am the dispenserer.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Hey! You do have a sense of humor!

  • MBD

    Hey, Abbott would be nothing without Costello.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    Dave means liberal in the classical sense. You are thinking he is meaning the modern interpretation of liberalism. It involves an economic liberalism; a libertarian world view.

    I agree with most of those notions as they are the most practical but chose more flexibility in applying solutions to problems.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Sorry to speak for you. I suppose its pay back for your response for me on the other thread. I posted it before I realised what I just did :o)

    I hope I got it right.

    Just putting in my social service duty hours on MBD this week.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    The classic definition of liberal remains the only really correct one. When people on the left refer to themselves as liberal, more often than not, if they think about it they can identify what makes them a liberal, and most of that does fall into the classical definition. With a little prodding they can even tell the difference between those beliefs they hold which are truly liberal and those which are actually socialistic.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Zedd says… “You are thinking he is meaning the modern interpretation of liberalism.”

    Just what we need here. Another apologist for nallecon.

    You can determine what I am thinking?

    Miracles never cease!

    Are you a real clairvoyant or did you just consult your Parker Brothers Ouija Board ?

    One moment nallecon takes the blue pill, and believes whatever he wants others to believe. Then he takes the red pill, and stays in his wonderland.

    Zedd, which pill are you on?

    Then with a little prodding cometh the neocon out of his closet and sayeth he is still on the red pill.

  • MBD

    “Ron Paul who didn’t raise his hand is still extremely – even frighteningly – religious.”

    “Ron Paul is a liberal too…”

    So, Ron Paul is a “frighteningly religious liberal”?

  • sr

    No health coverage Doc. The Hilldabeast will take care of that. You will have free trips on Airforce One to my ranch in Texas. Bring your shotguns. The bird hunting is great. My good friend Dick Cheney will take you into the fields and show you where the birds are. We have no indoor plumbing however each of our out house’s as a copy of the LA Times and naked pictures of fat Rosie. Please dont jeck off looking at the pictures. Our next patrons may not like Elmers glue on the toilet lid. What more could you ask for. Vote for sr and I’ll make all your dreams come true. My first day in office I will nuke San Fran and then Iran. President sr

  • MBD

    sr, forget the nuking if you want my vote and forget your asinine pre-emptive wars. An American president is simply not someone who is over 35 and a citizen, but someone who follows the Constitution and obeys the law. Just as importantly, the president should not endanger the security of the country for the sake of special interests. It is un-American, and when American lives are sacrificed for special interests, it is traitorous.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    So, Ron Paul is a “frighteningly religious liberal”?

    Yep, and there’s nothing more scary, really. Glad you finally understand over there in the special ed room.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    As long as you don’t speak too quickly or use big words (more than two syllables), he can occasionally grasp a few basic concepts…

  • MBD

    Ron Paul is a “frighteningly religious liberal” — just like Hillary “the beast’ or John ‘the haircut’– or any of the other left-wingers who all claim to be liberals, and obviously don’t give a damn for the Constitution?

    LOL!

    Or is nallecon just playing word games again after taking too many red and blue pills?

    And I would caution the parrot not to overdose on the pills. Parrot’s hoarse raucous sounds are already reduced to meaningless mumbles.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    MBD is fond of using buzzwords like “blowback” and “neocon” because they relieve him of the necessity of thinking for himself, and (he thinks) they make him sound “hip” and “now,” when in fact, his comments sound like those of an 85 or 90 year old embittered old man deep in the throes of early stage Alzheimer’s.

  • Nancy

    I think of all the comments above, Zing (#7 & 8) had it most right, altho about BOTH parties & most if not ALL candidates: none of them give a fuck about religion; all they want is their 4-8 years of earthly power, & Dems & GOPs both are busy getting worked up over who’s going to get to make fools & patsies out of all of us next.

  • Dr Dreadful

    That’s an accurate assessment in my opinion too. Isn’t it true that out of all 100 senators and 440-odd representatives, there’s only one who admits to being an atheist? Even just from a statistical standpoint, that’s highly implausible.

  • zingzing

    mbd… stop with the matrix references. it’s getting old. also, your anti-nalle shit is getting boring. we know you don’t like his politics (or is it just him?) and some of us agree with you. but dave’s no neocon, even if he does apologize for them sometimes. i think dave’s got his head screwed on 2/3rds of the way… it’s baffling how he can espouse some very lovely political idea(l)s, then turn around and be so blind about other things.

    the simplicity of your attacks on dave, which seem to want to point out contradictions in his political beliefs, are reflected by the simplicity of your “constitution only” platform. if it only it were that simple. nalle’s (and most everyone else’s) political beliefs are much more complex than you seem to understand, but that’s because yours are so nailed down. at least it seems so. you can tell me if i am wrong.

    by the way–i’m not apologizing for dave. i think he’s sorta right in this case (paul is dangerous), but he can be very, very wrong (in my book) on other things.

  • zingzing

    to #99 and #100– it’s easy to figure out why politicians want to appeal to christian believers. #1, they are a large group, mostly adult, who vote. #2, they are obviously gullible!

    oi.

  • sr

    MBD#94. I will not be your average every day president. I will just nuke as I see fit. If your wanting the position I offered you respect my orders. I just may have to nuke you.

    President sr

  • Dr Dreadful

    SR, no domestic nuking, OK? You should come to San Francisco one day and I’ll show you around the popular gay city government and vibrant liberal nightlife.

    So keep your finger off the button, or I will sneak up behind you and pull your pants down while you are giving the State of the Union address.

  • MBD

    Putting aside what the self-described jesters are mouthing, and getting to issues which matter, such as why Ron Paul is attacked by the neocons…

    Nallecon says…

    “The classic definition of liberal remains the only really correct one. When people on the left refer to themselves as liberal, more often than not, if they think about it they can identify what makes them a liberal, and most of that does fall into the classical definition. With a little prodding they can even tell the difference between those beliefs they hold which are truly liberal and those which are actually socialistic.”

    “only really “
    “more often than not”
    “they think”
    “most of “
    “little prodding”
    “which are truly “
    “which are actually ‘

    It all adds up to a lot of convoluted bullshit.

    The comment was made by zingo referencing, “the simplicity of your “constitution”… zingo, if it’s not also your Constitution, what are you doing commenting on it? And if you don’t believe in the Constitution, why are you living here and what fundamental law do you believe in?

    Ron Paul is a conservative who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. The neocons don’t like that. They want a president who will succumb to special interests and big money — the real enemies of the American people.

    The courts are here to take care of other Constitutional issues, but the courts can do nothing to deter an out-of-control president who believes in pre-emptive wars. The Constitution relies on the judgment of the president to make the right decisions on foreign policy.

    The president is supposed to protect the country, not to engage in wars such as the current neocon pre-emptive war in the Middle East that has made matters much worse for this country.

    To further support the military-industrial complex, we have our media promoting a propaganda offensive to support a pre-emptive war against Iran, as it did against Iraq.

    The loony neocons want a war on Iran, a country that has never attacked us, has no appreciable military, has never started a war for well over a hundred years, and only has a big-mouth president with a lot of bluster. How does another pre-emptive war help this country? Yet, which of the presidential candidates, other than Ron Paul, has spoken against such pre-emptive wars?

    What Iran wants is recognition as a normal country that abides by international law. The neocon notion that Iran is an expansionist “axis-of-evil” state came out of a political speech and has no basis in fact. Iran has no recent history of invading another country, unlike the countries which threaten Iran. It is the neocons who are the warmongers.

    That is the most important Constitutional problem Ron Paul is addressing and the neocons don’t want to hear it.

    If you can’t see it, that’s your problem.

  • sr

    Doc Kinkey, pull my pants down. No wonder you live in gay Frisco. Vibrant liberal nightlife. No thanks Doc. Dont need to nuke you. Muslim camels will fuck your city to death. Better have your vasoline survival kit on hand.

  • zingzing

    mbd: “The comment was made by zingo referencing, “the simplicity of your “constitution”… zingo, if it’s not also your Constitution, what are you doing commenting on it? And if you don’t believe in the Constitution, why are you living here and what fundamental law do you believe in?”

    the fuck are you talking about? you quote me out of context. i said, “the simplicity of your ‘constitution ONLY’ platform…” which means a totally different thing than how you quote me. but it points out the simplicity of your argument again.

    it is my constitution, but even if it wasn’t, i’d feel very fucking free to comment on it. i’m a free man whether the constitution says so or not. so i’ll skip the next question, as it is just silly at this point.

    i like that ron paul defends the constitution. it’s nice. we could deal with a bit more of that. but it’s not the only issue on the table. being a one-issue voter is just silly, and being a one-issue candidate is just deadly (not that paul is a one-issue candidate… it’s some of his other positions that bother me).

  • MBD

    Zingo… What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anything about having a ‘constitution ONLY’ platform.” Don’t put words in my mouth.

    You are doing what nallecon does — create smoke to avert real issues.

    The ‘simplicity of my argument’ is that first things come first. If there is disagreement on what is most important, lets talk about what else matters.

    I find nothing wrong with other issues such as smaller government which Ron Paul also advocates.

    I have seen no specific criticisms of Ron Paul on other matters. What have you got to offer other than follow the nebulous bullshit that nallecon spreads around?

    Let’s just cut out the bullshit.

  • zingzing

    you know as well as i do that what i mean by “constitution only platform” is that that seems to be all you go on about. it’s all you’ve spoken of so far on this post.

    and you’re the one who is creating “smoke to avert real issues” when you deliberatly misquote me. so don’t give me that.

    i don’t place the constitution above all other issues at stake. paul is dead wrong on immigration and abortion. (although i applaud his non-hyprocrisy–he opposes the death penalty as well.) he also seems to hold simplistic ideas about taxes and the role of the government. his views on gay rights are okay… he doesn’t like gay marriage personally, but thinks gov’t has no business in it either.

    but he does seem to listen to the people that vote for him, and he sticks by his principles. stubborness can be good and bad. it’s good in someone who doesn’t have ALL THAT MUCH power… but in the hands of the president? i dunno. we’ve seen that at work.

    overall, i think he’s an okay candidate, and generally a moral person with a good mind. but his views on abortion, gay rights, immigration and his general stubborness don’t make me want to vote for him. politics (especially at the presidential level) is a game of compromise, and if he’s unwilling to compromise, we’ll have another 4 years of stalemate between congress and the executive branch.

  • Lumpy

    MBD certainly gets hostile and defensive when anyone with half a brain points out the gaping holes in his apparently random worldview.

  • sr

    Now now boys try to be nice playing around in your little sandbox.

  • MBD

    sr — does your mommy know you’re playing with the computer?

  • MBD

    I can live with Ron Paul’s views on smaller government and states rights and most of his other views.

    There is no other candidate that comes close to having a better set of values.

    Our number one problem is our ludicrous foreign policy.

    It has been hatched by warmongers.

  • sr

    No my mommy doesn’t know cause Im out in my sandbox playing with my laptop and jecking off.

  • MBD

    Lumpy says:

    “MBD certainly gets hostile and defensive when anyone with half a brain points out the gaping holes in his apparently random worldview.”

    Yup. Half a brain doesn’t do it.

    Come back when you find the other half.

    BTW, what in hell is an “apparently random worldview.”

  • sr

    Most go MBD. My snails just arrived.

  • MBD

    sr – you can play the fool for just so long and then it begins to smell like rotten snails and it gets very boring and eventually gets to be nauseating.

  • sr

    MBD#117. Did you vomit?

  • Concerned Angeleno

    The LA Times is run by bigots.

    They worship Hollywood and the people who infest our culture.

    We should never have let them in America in the early 1900’s.

    They poisoned this great country with their lies, their smear-tactics, and their filthy lawsuits.

%d bloggers like this: